(Parrthenon) wrote:
Morten Sand was considered one of the REFORMERS in FIDE, an improvement on
the likes of a Makropoulos or a Ghobash. Maybe he is. But he is still a
snake. How exquisitely low.

Larry Parr's personal name-calling against Morten Sand is irrelevant
to the facts of the dispute between GM Vadim Milov and FIDE.

One notes that he does not dispute FIDE having sent the invitation
on the day of arrival.

In my view, with regard to any legal dispute, it's important to allow both
sides to represent themselves fully before making any judgment on the case.

One notes that Larry Parr has *completely snipped* what Morten Sand wrote
(which may be read in my earlier post) on behalf of FIDE in response to
GM Vadim Milov's accusation.

John Fernandez will note, correctly in a warped sense, that Milov could have
gotten to Tripoli SOMEHOW. If it were too late to book a commercial flight,
he could have raced by car, perhaps overnight, and hired a fast boat to get
across the Mediterranean. Something like that. And there would be some
small amount of truth in the claim.

Here's what Morten Sand wrote (which was in the text of the linked article
cited in my earlier post) in response (which Larry Parr has ignored):

"The delay of Mr. Milov's invitation was related to the fact that Mr. Milov
did not send his passport details within the given deadline. Information
regarding visa and passport details was sent to all the participants and
their federations a long time ago, and this information has also been
available on the FIDE website.

The invitation was sent to Mr. Milov just a few hours after midnight on
June 18th and as Mr. Milov had already been informed in the evening of June 17
by the FIDE representatives that the invitation was on its way, there was
absolutely no need for him to cancel his flight. Even after the cancellation
it still would have been no problem for Mr. Milov to reach Tripoli in time.
The FIDE Secretariat in Tripoli managed to find several flights, which had made
it possible to make the trip to Tripoli in time. FIDE also offered to pay for
flight costs and *even to postpone Mr. Milov's first game if necessary*.

Despite all these efforts made by the organizer and the FIDE Secretariat,
Mr. Milov still decided not to travel to Tripoli. ..."

--Morten Sand, on behalf of FIDE (Athens, 29 June 2004)

John Fernandez has written (elsewhere in this RGCP thread) that GM Vadim Milov
was involved in another scheduling dispute with FIDE about the start of
the FIDE World Championship tournament in Las Vegas. (Surely the Libyans
cannot be fairly blamed for GM Vadim Milov's complaints in Las Vegas.)

"To clarify what happened with Milov in Vegas--there was some confusion in
his match with Macieja, as Milov thought he was going to be passed through
to Round 2. Milov showed up, quite in a combative mood (I was in the office
when he showed up), and so on and so forth. Eventually, *they just had the
match delayed by a day to allow Milov to play.* It was a clear case then,
in my mind, of a player (GM Vadim Milov) simply not paying attention to
what was happening."
--John Fernandez (30 June 2004)

Given *the fact that FIDE previously had postponed* GM Vadim Milov's first
game in the Las Vegas tournament, Morten Sand's statement that FIDE was ready
"to postpone Mr. Milov's first game (in the Tripoli tournament) if necessary"
seems credible enough to me. FIDE had done that favour for GM Vadim Milov
before in Las Vegas; why would FIDE not be ready to do it again in Tripoli?

Evidently, at least according to what John Fernandez and Morten Sand have
written, GM Vadim Milov seems to have a record of "simply not paying (enough)
attention to what was happening" (to quote John Fernandez) about his travel
arrangements and then attempting to blame FIDE for his ensuing difficulties.

Still, on the whole, we can say that FIDE is ever so low.

What FIDE may or may not have done wrong in making its other decisions seems
irrelevant to the *specific facts* of its current dispute with GM Vadim Milov.

Perhaps Larry Parr should be thanked for corroborating that he evidently
has a closed mind in this case.

Perhaps the USCF could enter the suit in some fashion?
Perhaps Sam Sloan or someone here could address the legalities. ...

By extending his invitation *by name to Sam Sloan* (Would Sam Sloan be a
qualified lawyer in this case?) to 'address the legalities', Larry Parr
seems to have corroborated his evident trolling intentions in this thread.

--Nick